Stauffer Must Exit Sheriff's Race or Forever Be the Goat

If I were a tinfoil hat wearer, I'd swear Scottsdale police Lieutenant Mike Stauffer's quixotic campaign to be Maricopa County's top lawman was dreamed up in a backroom by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his flunkies as a way to ensure that Arpaio earns four more years in November.

But I'm not conspiracy-minded, and such a plot would have required an enormous amount of advance legwork. Stauffer declared his intention to run against Arpaio as a Republican more than two years ago, then decided in late 2011 to run as an Independent. This, before former Phoenix Police Sergeant Paul Penzone officially jumped into the fray as a Democrat.

Early on, Penzone quit his job at a local nonprofit, committing himself wholly to the crusade to rid this county of the corrupt criminal who currently runs the MCSO. By contrast, Stauffer only recently has promised to exit his day job at the Scottsdale Police Department.

Stephen Lemons

Independent sheriff candidate Mike Stauffer: A vote for him is a vote for Joe Arpaio.

So far, Penzone's dedication and work ethic have paid off.

He's scored a slew of endorsements from well-known Democrats and Republicans.

Signs advertising Penzone as "the new sheriff" are up countywide, in part because of the efforts of an army of more than 300 volunteers, many of them so-called DREAM Act students, determined to drive Arpaio from office.

And he's raised $224,000 and counting, cash that's allowed Penzone to do his first major ad buy on cable TV, for a commercial blasting Arpaio for the 400-plus botched sex crimes on his watch.

Sure, that $224K is nowhere near the $4.2 million Arpaio has on hand, but it's light years ahead of the $50,000 Stauffer's taken in since the beginning of 2010. And remember, $40,000 of that $50K was a loan from Stauffer himself, money he used to pay a local signature-gathering service to help put his name on the November ballot.

So after more than two years of campaigning, what does Stauffer have to show for it? A Facebook page, a website, an unpaid campaign manager, $10,000 in contributions, and few actual volunteers.

Tellingly, Stauffer has attempted to turn this lack of viability into a positive. As I noted in a recent column, he publicly scoffs at the suggestion that a lot of volunteers and a war chest are needed to capture the hearts and minds of some three-quarters of a million voters — what it likely would take to beat Arpaio ("Mike Stauffer's Third Wheel Bid," July 12).

Yet, without the $40 grand, Stauffer's name would not be on the ballot. Guess money occasionally does come in handy.

When Penzone trekked to San Francisco this month for a fundraiser hosted by former Mesa police chief and current San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, Stauffer posted an amateurish YouTube video featuring campaign manager and fellow Republican West Kenyon reading a script bashing Penzone for "jet-setting across the country" to engage in "partisan politics."

Instead, Stauffer was "staying right here," raising zero funds, a recipe for disaster.

The reality is that Penzone will need every dollar he can wrangle from contributors to beat Arpaio. The San Fran fundraiser shows hustle, a quality Stauffer holds in contempt.

Former Buckeye Police Chief Dan Saban has challenged Arpaio twice, once as a Republican and most recently, in 2008, as a Democrat. Though he flirted with the idea of running once more, he eventually opted not to put himself through that ringer again and now is supporting Penzone.

Why Penzone? Because Penzone has the best shot of retiring Arpaio. Simple as that.

"Penzone's raising the money, and he's got the network in place that you've got to have," Saban explained to me recently. "The boots on the ground in a grass-roots effort are critical."

Saban says he has a lot of respect for Stauffer's experience and for what he's achieved in his career, but he thinks Stauffer should withdraw as a candidate rather than risk a three-way race that could return Arpaio to power.

"I totally respect Mike Stauffer's desire to run," Saban said. "I get it. A true professional can't sit back and watch this carnage [of Arpaio's victims] and not want to step up and help.

"But after being involved in this process for nine years of my life, my opinion is that you've got to take Arpaio on head-to-head, give the voters just two choices."

In 2008, despite numerous handicaps, smears by the Arpaio camp, and a Democratic Party that abandoned him, Saban pulled 42 percent of the vote, or 558,176 votes to Arpaio's 730,426.

Remember, Arpaio was more popular in 2008 than he is now and ran as a team with now-disbarred County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Saban's achievement was significant. He pulled more votes than any Arpaio enemy in recent memory and demonstrated that a win over Arpaio was not as impossible as folks had thought

There was a third candidate in that race, Libertarian Chris A.H. Will. She had no law enforcement background and even less name recognition, pulling just 35,425 votes.

It's possible that Stauffer also will be a nonentity in November. But if the race turns out to be close, Stauffer's draw could mean the difference in the outcome. Also, his candidacy will offer a constant distraction, making Penzone compete for the earned media that a Joe foe must score to stay competitive.

If you want an experienced law enforcement officer then vote for Mike Stauffer. If you want a high school diploma educated community outreach officer then Penzone's your man.If you want more deaths, legal experiences and child molesters on the loose keep Joe.It's up to you.

oh, and btw, if your criteria for choosing "valid" candidates is how much money they've raised and how many endorsements they've collected, you should be backing Arpaio. If, however, your criteria is those qualities that make an effective leader, your choice should be Mike Stauffer.

Let's see, Paul Penzone has a few more dollars and a few more endorsements, as well as the apparatus of the Democratic party behind him (not saying much in a state as Red as this one). He also has much less higher education than Stauffer (who holds both a Bachelor and a Master's degree to Penzone's nothing) and less command experience than Stauffer (Lieutenant vs. Sergeant). Also, you have to think about the moneyed interests backing Penzone, and what they're going to want from him if and when he ousts Joe. If Joe wins again, it will all be on the Democrats for focusing on Stauffer when they should have been going after Joe. Hopefully their mud-slinging will bring focus and attention on Mr. Stauffer, who definitely has the credentials needed to be an effective law enforcement commander.

Actually I think Mike Stauffer is the man to beat Penzone. If you speak to Mike you know that this man is for real and really wants to do a good job as Sheriff. He has actual command experience and not just a Sergeant. I also don't remember any police investigations on Stauffer. I can't say the same for Penzone with his domestic violence issues.

Penzone should be the one who drops out so that Stauffer can get his votes.

Well, it would seem as though the Randybots have all ran away screaming. I can almost hear the command from their fearless leader.

‘STOP posting over there, we are making no headway and the only thing you are doing is giving those people a forum to say things and expose things that we DON’T want said and exposed. Email your friends or Go somewhere else, like facebook and post/say the things I have told you to say. And don’t ever get anything like this started again. Post until people start hitting you with uncomfortable facts/questions, then immediately switch the conversation to Stauffer or somebody and head off somewhere else. We don’t need this shit, we have a weak candidate and a questionable agenda, the last thing we need is to start a fight with people who can see through us"

Let's see here....Hulburd gave Parraz/CBA a check for $40,000 on 6/7/2012. On 6/27/2012, Parraz/CBA donated $40,000 to Moving Mesa Forward, a PAC. The PAC is run by Chad Snow, a republican......gee, what do you think that means?

There are times for nuance and diplomacy; the election for Maricopa County Sheriff isn't one of them.

This election is about getting rid of Joseph Arpaio who has been, and continues to be, the man who has directly, intentionally and illegally harmed more human beings than any other modern day elected official in America and maybe the World. Arpaio is massively corrupt, incompetent and sadistic. This election is about

> a hundred or more dead and maimed prisoners

> tens of thousands of people arrested for having brown skin

> letting thousands of rapists, child molesters, murderers, thieves and others go free to rape, molest, murder and steal again and again

> not to mention causing our County what will ultimately be a Billion dollars in various kinds of financial losses

This is a really ugly picture that Maricopa voters have allowed to putrefy for 20 years. It is now, and always has been, the duty of us voters to correct our massive errors. That responsibility includes using our brains to understand the huge mountain of corruption that threatens out County, AND using our heads so as NOT to enable a NON-VIABLE candidate to affect the outcome of the election this November.

That non-viable candidate is obviously the guy with no money, no volunteers, no organization, and no plan to win: Mike Stauffer.

Don’t kid yourself; some (most?) supporters of Stauffer are being deceptive, dishonest and are concealing their desire to see Joseph Arpaio re-elected. There is at least one such person who was pushed to publicly admit this on DFAs Facebook page. I’m sure that Sheriff Arpaio, if he had Lenin’s brains, would refer to Stauffer’s other supporters as “useful idiots.”

It's time to rally behind Paul Penzone and end this despicable reign of terror that we, to our great shame, have permitted in our County for 20 years.

Alot of political crack being metaphorically espoused on this thread or just blind eurphoric thinking that this democrat in name only Penzone has a snowball's chance in hell of winning even dog catcher much less beating Arpaio. But yet they say say insanity is doing the same dumb thing over and over expecting to get different results and such is the case with the corrupt party leadership of Maricopa county Democratic chair Ann Wallack who foisted and used unethical and probabl illegal suppression of the other candidate's civil rights to recruit Penzone, a man who stated previouslly that the main reason he's running as a democrat for sheriff is because there were no republican slots left open (theloushow.com) .

So go ahead and attack Mr. Stauffer, this is really just an excuse to for you all not to look like party hack fools win Penzone gets crushed because the racist supporters of Arpaio blindly vote for Arpaio. This way you can say: "Yep....that Stauffer...he's to blame." This is just another way for the corrupt D.I.N.O. Ann Wallack and her lackey leadership in Arizona to deflect once again the constant repetition of democrats getting their bacon handed to them election after election.

If my fellow progressives in the democratic party are successful (highly doubtable) against the big money millionaire who run the democratic leadership the first thing they should is to really follow the tenets of Franklin Delano Roosevelt instead of thinking they can duplicate the conservative democrat Third Way baloney of Bill Clinton who brought economic disaster to this country in the long run with N.A.F.T.A. which helped the corporate fascists like Romney. But oh well...you'll laugh at we progressives (you being the Blue Haired/Party Hack/Reagan Democrats calling us to radical for decrying how the democratic party has fallen from its original tenets and principals just as the republican party has fallen to the tenets of neo-American fascism. But come the day after the election we'll see whose right about Arpaio. In fact, I predict that the only hope of a laughable democratic version of Arpaio like Penzone has is that Stauffer takes votes away from Arpaio. Then and only then...does Penzone have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. So please...call the attack dogs off of Stauffer he's your only chance of winning (if indeed people like the corrupt Ann Wallack and her corporate lackeys really want Penzone to win). Let's at least pray the president wins re-election because I'd rather have a crook that I can somehow influence then a fascist like Romney who shows no mercy to the little people of this country.

The election results will look something like this: Arpaio, 47%, Penzone over 40%, Stauffer less than 10%. The only question will be, will Stauffer get more or less than 6 points? Less and Penzone wins; more and Arpaio wins.A vote for Stauffer is a vote for Arpaio. Some people want to fool people into voting for Arpaio by getting them to vote for Stauffer so that Arpaio gets re-elected. It is the time honored split-the-vote strategy. It's not likely that enough people will fall for it, but it could happen. What's a good word for those who exercise this strategy.

I said it below and I will say it here: From the second I met Mike Stauffer, I knew he lacked the charisma and vision to inspire people and win an election. From the second I met Paul Penzone, I knew he had it. This explains the difference in the amount of money and volunteers both have been able to raise. Stauffer may be more qualified on paper, but elections aren't decided on paper.

All Stephen is saying in this article is that it wouldn't take Stauffer's siphoning off many anti-Arpaio votes from the other candidate for Arpaio to win. 50,000 - 60,000 votes will make a 4-6% swing in the election. It's not just me, Randy, New Times, and a few others calling on Stauffer to step aside - it is just about everyone who has publicly criticized Arpaio over the last 10 years. Saban, Gascon, Romley, Goddard, Charlton, Manning - the list goes on. Stauffer's campaign is crossing the line from quixotic challengers to delusional, self-absorbed spoilers.

Paul Penzone had very little chance from the beginning. Randy Parraz and the tactics of his CBA minions have greatly reduced what little chance he may have had. This has to be the first campaign in history that consists 100% of attacks against the opponents and their supporters. Mudslinging has become a widely used tactic in American politics, but all campaigns spend at least 40-60% of their time touting the viability of their own candidate. Here all we see is the constant regurgitation of old news about Arpaio and his past deeds (DUH! We already know that) and orchestrated attacks against the only REAL candidate in the race, Mike Stauffer.

I'm not rallying around a tainted piece of meat handed to me by the local democratic party. I am not rallying around a man who partnered with the local dem party to defraud us out of the primary. This alone shows his unethical behavior, he knew what he was doing. The end does NOT justify the means when this kind of corruption is involved. Worse yet, the corruption is supported by Parraz and CBA. It makes us democrats no better than the AZ GOP, it's a big part of the problem.

This is an age old and much worn tactic that has been used by millions of people (including Rush Limbaugh and Hitler) who desire to distort the truth. You begin the statement with something that is known by most everyone to be 100% truthful (The abuses of Arpaio) and then you gradually blend in half truths, blatant lies and then end with an agreeable sentence (and end this despicable reign of terror that we, to our great shame, have permitted in our County for 20 years) thus giving the mistaken impression that everything you have said is factual. I guess these are the unethical tactics that people feel they must use when backing such a weak candidate.

"That non-viable candidate is obviously the guy with no money, no volunteers, no organization, and no plan to win: Mike Stauffer."

This comment sounds eerily similar to the scripted comments that the CBA minions have been dishing out. You’re not part of that operation, are you?

"Don’t kid yourself; some (most?) supporters of Stauffer are being deceptive, dishonest and are concealing their desire to see Joseph Arpaio re-elected"

Is this the latest childish plot that CBA has Orchestrated? The bullying and harassment tactics have failed. The campaign of blatant lies about Mr. Stauffer being another “Olivia Cortes” is currently underway and being widely exposed for what they are. So answer me, is this the latest plot that CBA has dreamed up? A plot to jokingly paint all supporters of Mr. Stauffer as Arpaio supporters? This is actually the same lie you have been using, you just slightly changed the words around. This version of the lie won’t need much exposure as the people in Stauffers camp, (quite unlike Mr. Penzone) are widely known to most everyone as having always been very Anti- Arpaio. I think it would behoove CBA to spend a few bucks and hire a strategist who has a brain. It looks like Randy’s brain has been fried; he must be overworked because he used to be better than that. Anyway, thanks for the early tip off that this is the next lie that you guys are going to attempt to spread, I needed a good laugh.

Now let me ask you another question that you won’t be able to answer. If Mr. Stauffer is another “Olivia Cortes” as your current hate campaign is attempting to allege, why not simply connect the dots, trace Mr. Stauffer back to the Arpaio campaign, provide proof of the findings to the media and end Mr. Stauffers charade, as you did with Olivia Cortes? As I recall it only took you a matter of days to accomplish this and expose Olivia. You have been after Mr. Stauffer for months like a pack of desperate hungry dogs and all you have to show for it are giant egg stains on your face. And even after you have learned that there is not one tiny shred of evidence that would even vaguely suggest that what you are saying is truthful, you still insist on spreading this vicious and blatant lie as though it were biblical truth. At this point, what makes you and the CBA any different than Arpaio or Russell Pearce? With your obvious lack of credibility on this crucial issue, what makes you believe that people should actually trust anything you have to say? Now even after having publically made total and complete asses of yourselves, you attempt to launch another idiotic hate campaign that jokingly alleges that most people in the Stauffer camp are working for Arpaio. It is my opinion (and the opinion of MANY other former CBA supporters) that the CBA has become nothing more than a poorly tuned propaganda machine that is using the donations of well intentioned supporters to continue their campaign of hate lies and distortion against anyone that would dare stand in the way of their personal agenda.

By the way I have taken the liberty of proofreading and editing the closing comment. I feel that my version is far more truthful.

“It's time to rally behind Paul Penzone and end this despicable reign of terror that we, to our great shame, have permitted in our County for 20 years”.

“Joe Arpaio is getting too old; it’s time for all people of low intelligence to rally behind Paul Penzone so we can replace Arpaio with a much younger right wing conservative Republican. Of course we must pretend that our goal is to end this despicable reign of terror that we, to our great shame, have permitted in our County for 20 years” And of course many of us are ignorant enough to actually believe that we are doing the right thing.

LMAO….go right ahead and keep thinking that the only people who know the truth are Stauffer and a handful of others. It’s laughable that so many of you actually believe that the truth has been so well concealed and distorted that only a few people are aware of it. Perhaps you should get out of the house more or do something on the computer besides playing video games, then you may realize that the things I am revealing are known by thousands and being widely revealed by hundreds.

@chucklereader1 Probably not Arpaio; too articulate. But likely someone in Arpaio's pay. BTW, if sutter doesn't like the speculation, he can just identify him or her self. You know, like Chad Snow, Leonard Clark, Tommy Collins. Or me, Bob Unferth.

Do any of you people ever have any sane, original thoughts? The Randybots on here who constantly repeat the same old worn out 3-5 lines remind me of Jan Brewer and her teleprompter. Without the teleprompter Jan would be speechless. Without Randy the CBA crowd would be speechless. Actually it's comical.

I've met both and your wrong Chad. This is why it so beneficial to not have to speak out of obligation from being in the republican or democrat gang to make decisions. True...I don't like the fact that I have angered some democratic party hacks or blind followers of the corrupt leadership of Ann Wallack but that's life when you make your decisions based upon what is right and not because you'll anger your particular political gang. It is good to be independent working together with others but folly to be dependent on the whims of corrupt political bosses whether they be democrat or republican.

You make a very valid point when you truthfully list the names of many people who have publicly criticized Arpaio over the last 10 years. I know for a fact that Mike Stauffers name belongs on that list as well, however I can find absolutely NO evidence that Mr. Penzones name should be on that list. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and provide evidence of Mr. Penzone having criticized Arpaio prior to becoming a candidate?

If not, perhaps you can tell me where I may find ANY prior evidence that would prove that Mr. Penzone did not subscribe to the same exact political ideology as Mr. Arpaio?

@StacyIsMe Some Stauffer supporters have publicly admit that they are trying to get people to vote for Arpaio so that Arpaio will be re-elected. I quote from Democracy for America's Facebook page:

"I personally believe with good reason that electing another conservative Republican and starting the same mess all over again would be 3 times worse than leaving Arpaio there for the short time that it will take for him to finish hanging himself. "

"if sutter doesn't like the speculation, he can just identify him or her self"

BTW, this has to be one of the stupidest comments that was ever uttered by an adult. Everyone remember this advice in case you are ever attacked don’t bother fighting back, you can just identify yourself if you don’t like it, that will fix everything. Is there even one asinine tactic that you won’t resort to in your desperate attempt to divert attention away from the glaring fact that you cannot disprove anything that I have stated?

And if you DON'T like the facts that I am posting here, you can just provide some FACTS that would "identify" what I am posting here is not true. You know, like Chad Snow, Tommy Collins. Or you, Bob Unferth have so far been unable to do? People like you hate nothing more than the truth and you especially hate the truth when people like me use it to counter the Orchestrated lies that you are attempting to spread, or as you prefer to call them "speculation"

I bet even that “toothless dingleberry” has better sense than to hang out with a group of people who are trying everything on earth to replace Joe Arpaio with Joe Arpaio Jr. so they can look like heroes to the community and keep the bucks rolling in.

@sutter77@bobunfNot quite true, Mr. Sutter. Just a few days ago Mrs. Brewer spoke very eloquently without a teleprompter when she endorsed Mr. Obama for President. I know she wasn't speechless by the clacking of her teeth.

@leonardclark@chadsnow Hey, Dumbass Liberal Who Likes to Lose, Chad and Randy were not backed by the Democratic Party in the recall. The Dems ran screaming like little girls. BTW, what exactly did you do to remove PEarce from power? Didn't see you down in Mesa working against him. Ever.

As a police officer prior to his retirement Mr. Penzone was forbidden by PPD policy from publicly speaking about elected officials or candidates. Which would explain why he didn't publicly criticize the MCSO shurf...

@bobunf@StacyIsMe Please show me the comments where Mike Stauffer's supporters claim he is shilling for Arpaio. Maybe it's the commentors that are doing Joe's work, not Stauffer. Think independently once in a while.

Some Stauffer supporters have said this, Some Stauffer supporters have said that, one Stauffer supporter done this, I even heard that the little nephew of one Stauffer supporter scribbled something on a note and was passing it around in class!

There is absolutely nothing contained in the statement you posted (if it’s even real) that would remotely suggest that the poster was a supporter of Arpaio, is this the best you can come up with?

When are you going to stop all of the stupid BS, and cut to the chase and answer some of the questions that everyone is asking about that talking suit that you so jokingly refer to as a viable Democratic candidate? It would seem that you would have learned by now that BS, changing the subject and trying to divert attention to other people is NOT going to work. I will call you out on it EACH and EVERY time. Now provide some valid answers or stop exposing to the world that you have NO answers, NO facts and absolutely CANNOT defend against the truth.

Let me ask you guys a serious question. Can any of you (except for Mr. Collins) even talk without it being written down for you, or without Randy or Chad saying it first? Are you even allowed to? That’s a serious question. If you so desperately want to believe that I am Dee Dee, Mike Stauffer, his campaign manager or some guy from another blog, then that’s fine with me. I will be any or all of those people if it helps you. In reality it only serves to expose your stupidity and lack of independent thinking abilities. There are thousands of people who are saying and thinking almost the same exact things that I am posting on here and we are saying them because they are the obvious truth and they have occured to each of us, NOT because we are mindless minions who are being coached/instructed to say them. I know all of you must truly remain ignorant of any basic fact that Chad or Randy doesn’t tell you.

You should stick to only using your DeeDee for taking a PeeWee, it would seem as though the lifelong over indulgence of self pleasure techniques has greatly reduced your ability to have an original thought. You make a perfect Randybot.

The Dems also ran screaming like little girls when it came time to select a viable candidate for Sheriff (as evidenced by their selection) If I were you I would continue reminding as many people as possible of the Pearce recall, that’s the last time Randy and the CBA had widespread respect and support from the community, of course that was while CBA was a community service oriented organization instead of a career opportunity for certain people. How many people have abandoned CBA since the old days? I bet even you have lost track.

You should know exactly what I’m talking about when I mention Arpaios tactics because CBA is using that SAME EXACT tactic against Mike Stauffer with the recently launched campaign to compare him to Olivia Cortes. Please don’t lie and try to say that it’s NOT an organized effort launched by CBA. I have seen that same bullshit posted in at least 11 places on the internet within the last 72 hours. All of the postings contain the same insane insinuations that Mr. Stauffer has hung around in the wings for over two years, risked his career, reputation and everything that he has to be a shill candidate for Joe Arpaio in November of 2012 and somewhere in each posting there is the silly phrase “A vote for Stauffer is a vote for Arpaio” At least 8 of those 11 postings can be identified as having come from people within CBA. Is it illegal? NO. Is it dishonest, immoral, misleading, and unethical, ? YES!.. It’s also a Definite sign of DESPERATION. It would take a person of low intelligence to believe that fairy tale and it would take a very stupid, unethical person to help spread it.

It obviously did NOT stop Mike Stauffer. Mike has been telling it like it is against Arpaio for well over two years and he has been VERY vocal and has never mixed words. What you have actually admitted about Mr. Penzone is one of two things

.

1. He never spoke out against Arpaio for the same reason that Brewer, Pearce and all the other conservative right wing Republicans never speak out against him.

.

2. He has NO conviction, NO courage, NO backbone, and he is a coward who would never speak out or take a stand against injustice if there was even the slightest chance that there may be political repercussions for his actions.

.

WOW, What GREAT Sheriff material!!

.

Now tell me, which answer is correct?... I Choose answer #1

.

“Now let me predict what you will say. “OH, NO. None of that is true at all. You see the departmental policies are different in Scottsdale than they are at the Phoenix Police Department,Yada.Yada.Yada.”

At which time I will promptly call BULLSHIT and refer you to answer #2. I have had this conversation many times before.

.

You see, Mr. Collins, I am none of the people that I have been accused of being on these threads actually I am nobody special at all, but I am the worst nightmare in the world for fake candidates and organizations who support them, There are tens of thousands of me and I am everywhere, you never know where you will run into me and once you do run into me, you just want me to shut up and go away because you are not trained or equipped to deal with me. I don’t accept silly answers, rhetoric, bullshit or lies that have been repeated over and over in an attempt to make them sound truthful. I am known as an INFORMED VOTER and if you can’t even defend your candidate against people like me, how could you possibly think that you stand even a remote chance of defending him against something as vicious as the well funded Arpaio attack machine? I am only alleging TWO things against Paul Penzone and both of them are the TRUTH. I am alleging that Mr. Penzone is a grossly under qualified, right wing conservative Republican. Neither of those things is slanderous or hateful. Right wingers are just Americans with a very different ideology than you and I (not so sure about you) and I think there are probably a gazillion things that most people are not qualified to do. Arpaio is going to pull out all of the stops. Arpaio is going to say and allege things against Mr. Penzone that I would never dream of saying and they are not going to be said on blogs, they are going to be said on billboards, campaign literature, radio, television and the newspapers. You know how Arpaio works. He takes things that there is only a 1% chance of being true and he spins and twists them and tells them with such conviction that they actually sound believable to people.

As I label them? What would you label them? And what would you label this HIT PIECE by Mr.Lemons?

.

“Very American, indeed. I can think of some continents and/or countries where this type debate might not be allowed.”

.

You truly lost me on this one. Are you laboring under the illusion that everything that is not permitted or allowed in other continents and/or countries is American?

.

“I don't know that Mr. Stauffer needs to be protected”

.

I am NOT here because Mr. Stauffer NEEDS protection nor did anyone ask me to come here. Mr. Stauffer is QUITE capable of protecting himself as evidenced by the fact that he is still in this race. I am here because I have a VERY low tolerance level for bullshit and the use of bullshit attacks against people who are being accused of things they are not guilty of. I am especially intolerant of these things when the perpetrators of said acts are being led by people who are willing to stop at nothing to accomplish their own personal agenda. I would think that Mr. Stauffer is probably content to just watch from the sidelines and marvel at the childlike stupidity that is being put on display by the minions that have been brainwashed into thinking that they are doing something positive.

.

“I no longer think he is the best candidate to oppose the MCSO shurf,”

.

Ok, that’s fine and I can respect that, so don’t vote for him, campaign for Mr. Penzone or whatever. But your personal decision that Mr. Stauffer is not the best man for the job is absolutely NO justification for taking part in the concentrated effort to spread blatant lies about him being “another Olivia Cortes”especially when you know in your heart (As do most of the people who are facilitating this falsehood) That there is NOT a word of truth in what you are saying. I could easily repeat a dozen VERY unflattering things I have heard about Mr. Penzone, but I DON”T because I don’t know them to be true and it would be WRONG. I am quite sure Arpaio will have a field day with them as his ethics and tactics appear to be similar to those currently being deployed by most of the posters in this forum. You people attack me for stating two very obvious facts about Mr. Penzone, yet you feel that it’s quite ok to pull out all the stops and bash, ridicule, slander and even lie about one of Mr. Penzones opponents? I’m sorry but I am having serious difficulty following that logic.

.

The remainder of what you posted is a mixture of things that I either agree with, partially agree with or don’t agree with at all. I am not going to break them down and address them because they are not truly relevant to the main topic of this conversation.

Mr. Sutter, I would say that any of the 'attacks', as you so label them, are very American, indeed. I can think of some continents and/or countries where this type debate might not be allowed. I don't know that Mr. Stauffer needs to be protected. As I've earlier said, I met Mike and actually signed his petition early in his campaign. I no longer think he is the best candidate to oppose the MCSO shurf, however, having met and talked with both Mike Stauffer and Paul Penzone. There is a lot to be said for command presence and bearing and Mike, bless his best tie, does not present as well as Paul. Mike is much better formally educated and he has some great thoughts and ideas that could be beneficial as a command staff officer with MCSO, with Paul as sheriff. Many very successful police commanders have minimal formal education (four years or less) but they have the ability to communicate well and to understand the salient issues needed to run a law enforcement agency, such as MCSO. The current sheriff has made a laughing stock of MCSO in the law enforcement community in Arizona. We really need to change that.

Tommy, first of all I appreciate you offering the opportunity to speak with Mr. Penzone, actually it’s the only civil and sensible response that has been on this board that has not obviously came from a Q card/script. While I truly appreciate the offer, I feel as though I have heard and seen and know enough about Mr. Penzone that I am justified in my opinion of him. I MAY well take your advice and give it one more try. However I would like to point out the fact that I am NOT attacking Mr. Penzone nearly to the extent that this article by Mr. Lemons has attacked Mr. Stauffer, nor am I the one who began the Pre-Programmed/scripted/Q card attacks in this comment section. The facts that I am presenting in defense of Mr. Stauffer are merely a valid response to the unwarranted and totally un-American attacks against his candidacy. Once again, thank you for your common sense and civility.

This comment is not contained in any of the more recent CBA scripts or recommended statements, Randys gonna spank…Oh, wait. I see now, you were parroting something Chad stated earlier. I would assume that is acceptable under CBA guidelines. You scared me for a moment; I actually thought one of you may have had an original thought.

You see, Marcy? We have meetings just like you guys do; only we stick to discussing facts. People have time to discuss facts when they don't have to discuss and rehearse the silly rhetoric that must be used in response to any uncomfortable questions that may be posed against their inferior candidate.

Marcy, you do a pretty fair job of reading the Q cards that Randy has provided for you. I mean really, you guys are going to have to a better job than all saying the same 2 or 3 things over and over. The important thing that CBA forgot to mention while coaching you, is the FACT that the Olivia Cortes theory actually makes far more sense when applied to Mr. Penzone than it does when laughingly applied to Mike Stauffer. Since your response is noticibly canned and totally lacks creativity, let me respond to it with the same comment that I used when responding to the last Pre-Programmed Bot that posted it.

.This silly rhetoric is worn thin and it’s just another well worn tool that is being constantly used by a group of people who cannot defend against the deficiencies of their own candidate. If you will do some research I think you will find that in all actuality, Paul Penzone fits the profile of a shill candidate more so than Mike Stauffer. As compared to Penzone, Mike Stauffer has been on the scene forever. Penzone is the one who has zoomed in from the Republican camp at the last minute and suddenly decided that he wants to take a stand against Arpaio. (Sound familiar?) Penzone is now the main party opposition against Arpaio and he is a very weak candidate. Sound like a dream come true for Arpaio? Does to me! Actually I am not going to sink to your level and accuse Mr. Penzone of being a shill candidate. I prefer to believe what the preponderance of evidence suggests; he is just a delusional Republican who is attempting to keep Arpaio’s brand of politics in the MCSO while wearing Democrat shoes. BTW, there are tens of thousands of us that feel that way and it will be evidenced at the polls in November.